If a news article comes out today about something that Nike did 20 years ago then sure, link it, the article is current, but just because people didn't pay attention to, or don't remember, an article from a year ago doesn't mean that the moderators should let it slide. And no, one article doesn't clog the sub but if the moderators start slacking and letting stuff slide then pretty soon the sub will be clogged up with out of date crap.

just because people didn't pay attention to, or don't remember, an article from a year ago doesn't mean that the moderators should let it slide

Yes it does. News pages, and journalism in general, are for the dissemination of currently relevant (I can hardly imagine how this story could be more currently relevant) information to those who are yet unaware.

If you're just trying to have a petty fight with me, which it seems you are since you keep selectively forgetting things I've written, I'm not going to keep going on this conversation but I'll give you one last chance.

So I can just start digging up any old article and link it just because people might not have read it when it came out?

No. What makes this article different is that it's not very old, it never received the attention it should have, and it's extremely topically relevant and important in light of recent events.

Ok, so where does the line get drawn? "Not very old" is an extremely relative term. A 75 year old thinks that something from a decade ago isn't very old, a 14 year old thinks that something from a week ago is ancient. "Never received the attention it should have" is another extremely subjective term. Who determines how much attention something should receive?

Corruption in the news media is not news, we've known about it for quite a long time. Sure, new articles about specific aspects of that corruption come out every now and then, but this isn't a new article and isn't really saying anything new; the news media is controlled by the government and corporations, fucking duh, that hardly makes it worth dredging back up. Since so many people are already generally aware and informed about this topic the moderators are perfectly justified in removing out of date articles.

He seemed reasonable when he started, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. I wish people on Reddit didn't so often let their personal need to feel like they've 'won' at something override their judgement.